Going forward, seven key concerns stand at the forefront of possible progress in public administration theory and practice. That progress is important to the robust health of government, and therefore to society, but only if it is salient to the public and its media and political surrogates. Government at all levels, increasingly challenged in the United States and many other countries, must address at least seven core concerns if the civil society is not to become hopelessly contentious and fragmented.
The first, and the basic underlying concern, is a public trust. In an era of declining public trust, the public sector faces the challenge of re-establishing its legitimacy in the minds of perhaps half of our citizens. Although the recent pandemic- and economic-related crises have reaffirmed the importance of government in existential terms, the long-term trend has been one of declining trust for at least five decades. Yet trust is the “glue” or cement for governing societies, conferring upon government its basic source of power. In contrast, dissatisfaction, disenchantment, and distrust can undermine that legitimacy. A trust deficiency, therefore, undermines the ability of governments to perform, to deliver services as promised in their founding documents, their legislation, their agency mission statements, and their oaths of office.
Trust is the “glue” or cement for governing societies, conferring upon government its basic source of power. In contrast, dissatisfaction, disenchantment, and distrust can undermine that legitimacy. A lack of trust, therefore, is the prerequisite to undermining the ability of governments to perform.
The role of government has been trending toward becoming a “conductor” and “mediator” between the nongovernmental actors and citizens. Although governments have worked to explore ways to enhance their legitimacy, some approaches may actually decrease it, as is often the case when the increased use of nongovernmental actors (both the private sector and NGOs) to deliver public services gives rise to doubts as to the very concept of governance. While much of the New Public Management movement was designed to “restore” trust in government through better productivity and performance, the blurring of the distinction between the public and private sectors may paradoxically create more distrust, as citizens become confused as to who represents their interests, where to register requests and complaints, and why they are paying fees on top of taxes.
How might the public sector reestablish its legitimacy? Legitimacy is the acceptance or acquiescence of the government (and its public servants) by the people in terms of both necessary and preferred services. That trust is affected by a number of factors: “how” public services are delivered, the performance of public sector agencies indelivering those services, the level and type of participation by citizens, and the flow of information from government to its citizens. Are transparency and accountability being practiced throughout government? And are we extending those ethical principles to non-governmental partners? Why do states exempt some facets of their governance from transparency laws? Drivers of transparency exemptions should be questioned, including economic development competition between states; and conflicts between reform initiatives and agency goals. The more open government is perceived to be on each of these factors, the greater the likelihood that trust will rebound.
A second major concern revolves around long-term commitments. Government’s many simultaneous missions, all within collective resource constraints known as “budgets,” require a delicate balancing act. This gives rise to tensions: short-term versus long-term orientations; balancing the welfare state with fiscal responsibility; and realistic expectations versus instant gratification. For example, public sector organizations face three simultaneous commitments, among others: keeping the economic house in order despite international policies and unavoidable cycles; maintaining legitimacy and satisfying citizens despite often unrealistic expectations; and coping with crises, such as the pandemic, in a world where citizens question science and mandates.
A third concern is the prevalence of disciplinary silos. Are we adequately and appropriately incorporating the contributions of other disciplines into debates and analyses about governance? Governance has, of course, been studied not only by public administration scholars, but also by researchers from other disciplines such as economics, business management, political science, and sociology. But we have paid virtually no attention to lessons from literature and the arts, critiques that are evident in novels, in movies, and on smaller screens. Bringing those ethical and managerial insights into the dialogue is essential to developing deeper lessons for the field. In particular, by reviewing different research streams, we should examine the concept of disciplinary boundary-spanning in the context of messy problems, such as pandemics and other public health dangers; global climate change; immigration driven by cataclysmic events, natural and man-made; pollution of the seas; intellectual property appropriation; human trafficking; market manipulations and many, many other phenomena.
A fourth concern is whether rational behavior is a naïve assumption. Market-like mechanisms assume rationality in the behavior of stakeholders. Yet rationality is a dubious assumption. Governance is fundamentally about the citizen-state exchange and service-delivery – “people-work” – that involves both science and art. Rational decision-making expectations must always be tempered by the “inexplicable and irrational” behaviors exhibited in decision-making, from elected leaders to street-level bureaucrats. We must acknowledge that, at all levels, leadership styles may be more of a function of informal assumptions than informed training, or “common sense” rather than scientific sense. And many stakeholders are ignorant of causality, reject scientific methods, and are vulnerable to following erratic, charismatic, egocentric personalities.
A fifth concern is whether we are adequately improving performance in government in order to “deliver as promised.” Instead of reforms modeled on private-sector practices – the business model – our research and practice should focus on data-driven, rational analyses which entail information collection and are used to support decision-making. Instead of publishing data in daunting tables, performance measures should be presented as salient graphics that are readily understandable. Instead of inventing solutions to organizational problems, governments should be searching the Web for best practices and then adapt those innovations to the local context. Instead of focusing primarily on fiscal management, the government should give equal weight to performance programs that are oriented to goal achievement.
A sixth concern is whether emerging technologies actually have a very positive effect on governance by giving rise to new forms of public deliberation and collaboration – blogs, social media, apps, smartphones – without factoring in unintended and negative consequences. That is, the full and systemic implications of technology need to be further explored via systematic research. New forms of governance might also include theuse of web-based tools for citizen and agency deliberation and co-development of public policy mandates and regulations via extensive online dialogue with stakeholders. New communication technologies might well enable more robust public engagement with the government over public policy and program management issues, as well as new means of internal organizational teamwork. Web technologies, allow for coordination, collaboration, and process integration, as well as citizen services and opportunities for public deliberation.
The internet and its technology offerings are rapidly evolving, and with every new tool, there are promises, limitations, and risks.
The seventh concern, the often overlooked need for professional collaboration and extensive networking, requires us to have a much deeper understanding of complex and shifting human interactions. How adequate is our understanding of collaboration, hybrid governance, and networking? What are the main questions for theory to answer and in what creative ways could collaboration and networking be enhanced? We need meaningful input and feedback from clients by moving from traditional, rule-bound organizational arrangements such as hierarchies to new institutional arrangements such as inclusive stakeholder networks, temporary “pop up” links, and “instant” polls.
It is time for a “comeback for the State.”